MichaelBishop comments on Action vs. inaction - Less Wrong

7 Post author: PhilGoetz 30 November 2009 06:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (43)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 30 November 2009 10:14:39PM * 2 points [-]

Empirically, we have a much higher success rate at intervening in health than in economics.

It would be easier to establish this is true if the relevant class of interventions were better defined.

One issue is that individuals will make better decisions for themselves than they do for government. i.e. myth of the rational voter.

Yet in health, we see action as inherently dangerous; while in economics, we see inaction as inherently dangerous.

Again, there does appear to be lots of medical over-treatment so I'm not so sure your claim is true.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 01 December 2009 12:30:40AM 0 points [-]

Again, there does appear to be lots of medical over-treatment so I'm not so sure your claim is true.

How about this: In health, the government sees action as inherently dangerous; while in economics, it sees inaction as inherently dangerous.